THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:31:05] ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: The man accused of killing five people and sending dozens to the hospital at Fort Lauderdale International Airport will be in court today. Why did police give him back his gun after he was clearly suffering from some mental illness?

Let's bring in our FBI experts. We have CNN's senior law enforcement analyst and former FBI assistant director Tom Fuentes and former senior FBI profiler and former FBI special agent Dr. Mary Ellen O'Toole.

Great to have both of you experts with us.

Dr. O'Toole, I want to start with you.

There's this horrible video. It has been obtained by TMZ. It's the surveillance video of the exact moment that this gunman reached into his waistband and began in cold blood firing at people. We're only going to show it once there, but I wanted to show it to you because you're a profiler. What do you see in this man's profile and this video?

DR. MARY ELLEN O'TOOLE, FORMER SENIOR FBI PROFILER: Well, from the behavior (INAUDIBLE) by some of the behavior, he wasn't erratic. He wasn't screaming and yelling and jumping up and down. It appears that he was pretty much in control. He was more casual than he was erratic. He was simply pointing the gun and shooting. He was pretty predatory actually in his behavior. And that suggests somebody to me who's looking at these people, the victims, as really non-humans. That he sees them more as objects. And we really look for that kind of behavior before an event occurs. If we're going to do a threat assessment -

CAMEROTA: Yes.

O'TOOLE: What I look at is, what is this person's view of other human beings? That really can impact whether or not they decide to carry out an act like this.

CAMEROTA: Hey, Tom, there's so many troubling things about this case. This guy was clearly suffering from some sort of mental illness. He went himself to the FBI field office in Anchorage. He went in and told them that he was hearing voices. He thought in his head they were U.S. intelligence agencies telling him to watch ISIS videos. They were concerned enough that they called the local police. The local police helped admit him to a psychiatric facility for, I think, three days. And a month later they gave him his gun back. Where do you think the crack in the system is?

TOM FUENTES, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, Alisyn, it's not a crack, it's the Grand Canyon in the entire system, but it's not on the fault of law enforcement. You know, the FBI, when they hear him come in and make all these delusional statements, they're concerned, could he be ISIS, could he be radicalized, and then they investigated that. And when they saw none of that, and all they saw was the delusional comments, all the heard were the things that he was saying, then they believed he's mentally ill.

And they're not psychiatrists, generally, other than mental health professionals like Mary Ellen O'Toole, but they make a referral to the police to come get this person. The police have the authority to take him to a hospital that has a psychiatric ward. But once that person's brought there almost voluntarily, they check themselves in and they can check themselves out. And it's the psychiatrists at that hospital that determine whether an adjudication needs to be made that he is mentally ill. It's not the opinion of the FBI or the opinion of the police.

Now, when the police arrived at the Anchorage FBI office to pick him up and went to his car, they find that he's got a gun and his infant child is in the car.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

FUENTES: So they return the infant child to the mother and they take the gun. They don't confiscate it as evidence. They take it in safe keeping, that it's just a loaded gun isn't laying around somewhere while he's at the hospital. When he comes out of the hospital, he's not been formally judged mentally ill. So when he goes to the police station and says, OK, can I have my gun back, they have no alternative. It's his personal property, which he has a lawful right to own, according to the laws at hand -

CAMEROTA: Yes.

FUENTES: And also he's not been convicted of a felony. They have no ability to hold on to that weapon. They have to give it back to him.

[08:35:07] CAMEROTA: So, Dr. O'Toole, what is the answer here? As a profiler, if this guy walked into your field office, what is the answer to preventing something like this?

O'TOOLE: Well, right now, as Tom said, this would be the way it would be handled. So there are three areas in my - in my opinion where we really need to focus. And number one would be that that mental health assessment needs to be multidisciplinary, which means, you bring in family's opinion, you bring the opinion of the National Guard and you have someone in law enforcement who is able to sit down with psychologists and psychiatrists and say, here's our experience with people like this, so that you've got this opinion that - that is very broad based.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

O'TOOLE: And then, secondly, if there are charges pending that involve domestic violence or crimes involving a firearm, the return of the firearm should be suspended until those cases are adjudicated. And then, thirdly, you have vertical prosecution by the district attorney's office, like they did in the '70s and '80s with career criminal programs. The prosecutor follows the case from arraignment to the trial so that if there are any issues or concerns, that one prosecutor is so familiar with the case, they can move up and go and file a special motion with the judge to say, we have an issue here.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

O'TOOLE: Three areas that I think we can focus on.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

Dr. O'Toole, thank you very much for those - that focus that you gave us and your expertise.

Tom, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

FUENTES: You're welcome.

CAMEROTA: All right, more NEW DAY when we come right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:40:21] CAMEROTA: One of Donald Trump's national security communications picks is now facing a plagiarism scandal after a CNN Kfile report that found conservative author and television personality Monica Crowley plagiarized, it appears, large sections of her 2012 book.

So the book is "What the Bleep Just Happened." I worked with Monica Crowley, I'd like to say, for many years. She is a lovely person. A smart, political mind. How did you figure out that this book appears to have something like 500 instances of plagiarism?

CAMEROTA: Oh, where did I read - 500 examples of plagiarisms from other - no, just 60?

KACZYNSKI: Just 60 in there. CAMEROTA: OK. Forgive me.

KACZYNSKI: Sixty examples of plagiarism in the whole book. Basically, you know, we are looking through this book because, you know, many people, which I have a copy of the book right here, write these books. She is, you know, was - as you said, a Fox News contributor. A lot of those people with their position on Fox, you know, can really promote these books, can, you know, make a lot of sales.

CAMEROTA: Oh, it's a bestseller, right? It was a bestseller.

KACZYNSKI: Yes, "New York Times" bestseller list for two weeks.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

KACZYNSKI: So what - you know, with a lot of these books, sometimes a lot of effort is not put into them. You know, we - I previously reported on all the plagiarism in Rand Paul's book. With a lot of books like these, they are often - you know, the best care is not taken to them as if, you know, when someone is writing like a very lengthy history -

CAMEROTA: I want to ask you about that because let me put up some examples that you found that are eerily similar to other places. So let's - let's look at a couple of these. Here's Monica Crowley side by side with "USA Today." One page 175, Monica Crowley writes, "this represented a major shift in the source of personal income away from private wages into government programs." "USA Today" wrote, "the result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs." Here's a side by side of Monica Crowley and Wikipedia. It says, "in December, 2007, CIA Director Hayden stated that of about 100 prisoners held to date in CIA program, enhanced techniques were used on about 30, waterboarding on just three." If you look at Wikipedia, it says virtually the exact same thing.

Bill, how big of a problem is this for someone coming in for a national security communications post?

BILL CARTER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST: Well, you could make the argument that there's no real responsibility that overlaps, like it would in terms of journalism or writing a book. But you could say there's a little bit of a lack of attention to detail, sloppiness and maybe the ethics of it.

Usually when a case like this happens, a person apologizes. They say, I made a mistake. I should have checked this. I should have gone over this. What's interesting here is the response. The response has been, this is only politically motivated, as though, when you make a mistake or you criticize - when you criticize this administration, it's only on the basis of politics. Here it is a fundamental of reporting and certainly publishing. The publisher normally, in these cases, steps back and says, well, we have to correct that. We have to go through the book. We have to give someone credit, et cetera. And it - and, instead, they're basically saying, no, it's just more political attacks, rather than acknowledging that there's an ethical problem here. You should have done something about this.

CAMEROTA: Is that what HarperCollins, the publisher, has told you, that this is just a political attack from you?

KACZYNSKI: Well, the Trump transition responded to us saying, this is a politically motivated attack. They actually cited this as part of the body of work as to why they hired her. HarperCollins, very strangely, didn't even respond to an e-mail, phone calls. You know, put a read receipt on the e-mail. It was read like, you know, 200, 300, 400 times. They just - they just didn't respond until Sunday when they said, no comment, we are looking into it. So in this instance, it is very strange for HarperCollins to just not - you know, to stonewall.

CAMEROTA: OK, so they - but they haven't called it a political attack.

KACZYNSKI: No, they have not.

CAMEROTA: They haven't - just haven't responded. But surely they will have to. HarperCollins cannot let that stand.

KACZYNSKI: I mean, we will see. I have, to this point, been extremely surprised that HarperCollins has, you know, given, you know, to not even respond to reporter's inquiry about, you know, major plagiarism in one of your books is something that is very strange.

CAMEROTA: I'm looking to see if we have any response from them.

But, Bill, some of these things are - they're not sort of opinions. I mean the ones that I just read, that's sort of exposition of just explaining something.

[08:45:02] CARTER: Yes.

CAMEROTA: I mean isn't that sort of in the public domain? It's just talking about how many people were water boarded, or when, and things like that. Can't - can't she make the argument that she was just putting actual information in there, that wasn't her opinion that she lifted from someone?

CARTER: Absolutely. And she could easily footnote it and that would take care of it, really, in many of these instances. It's just the sort of overwhelming number of these that's sort of unusual. And, yes, people borrow things from speeches, but, you know, this has damaged people's political careers in the past. You know, Joe Biden had this issue. And I think if he had run for president this year, you would have seen an attack on him based on previous plagiarism.

So it isn't - it's a question of your ethics and do the standards still count. And I think we're looking at that now across the board with a lot of these administration appointees. Are they going to be held to the same standards? This is something that could be fixed. Just acknowledge the mistake, saying it's going to be changed in the next edition, and footnote it and give people credit. I think that's what you need to do.

CAMEROTA: OK. Bill, Andrew, thank you very much. Let us know when you hear back from HarperCollins -

KACZYNSKI: We'll do.

CAMEROTA: About what their response, other than no comment, is.

What's your take on this? You can tweet us @newday or you can post your comment on facebook.com/newday.

Well, Hollywood stars using the award shows to take on the president- elect. Up next, how celebrities went after Donald Trump without ever saying his name. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:49:56] CAMEROTA: Golden Globe and Academy Award winning actress Meryl Streep making headlines for her acceptance speech when she got on stage to accept a Lifetime Achievement Award at last night's Golden Globe ceremony.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MERYL STREEP, ACTRESS: There was one performance this year that stunned me. It sank its hooks in my heart. Not because it was good. It was - there was nothing good about it. But it was effective and it did its job. It made its intended audience laugh and show their teeth. It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter. Someone he outranked in privilege, power and the capacity to fight back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Well, Mr. Trump firing back in a flurry of tweets this morning. Here is one. "Meryl Streep, one of the most overrated actresses in Hollywood, doesn't know me but attacked last night at the Golden Globes. She is a Hillary flunky who lost big. For the 100th time, I never mocked a disabled reporter, would never do that, but simply showed him graveling when he totally changed a 16-year-old story that he had written in order to make me look bad. Just more very dishonest media."

Nischelle, let me start with you. This seemed a little out of character, pardon the pun, for Meryl Streep. She's not known - well, you correct me if I'm wrong, is she known for being sort of a political grandstander?

NISCHELLE TURNER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I don't know if grandstander is the word to use for it, but she is political. I mean we saw her this summer at the Democratic National Committee come out and give a speech, a very passionate speech, a very forceful speech and poignant speech. I think Meryl Streep is known in Hollywood for definitely championing certain issues and doing - and living out loud by them. I don't think by any stretch of the imagination she is a shrinking violet.

Now, I don't ever remember her giving a speech like this on a stage like the Golden Globes, but I do think that she definitely speaks her mind. She definitely has a political view and she's not afraid to say it.

CAMEROTA: So, Brian, now, of course, she is confronting a tsunami of social media response to that.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Oh, yes. Yes.

CAMEROTA: I'll read you a couple of them. Meghan McCain, daughter - she's a conservative and daughter of Senator John McCain. She says, "this Meryl Streep speech is why Trump won. And if people in Hollywood don't start recognizing why and how, you will help him get re- elected." Sean Hannity says, "this is exactly why Hollywood is dying. What a bunch of hypocrites. Sex, violence and drivel rule Hollywood. Turning the channel."

STELTER: New shots in the culture war. You know, people sometimes say, a speech like Meryl Streep's is not going to change minds. It's not going to change the minds of the people she was trying to communicate with. I don't think that was her intent.

TURNER: Right.

STELTER: I don't think she was trying to change Trump voter's minds. Some speeches are about persuasion. This was about motivation. Between 53 percent and 54 percent of the United States of people who did vote did not vote for Trump. And then, of course, let's of people didn't vote at all. Among those people, among the 54 percent that didn't vote for Trump, they're going to want motivation. They're going to want encouragement in the next four - four years. And Meryl Streep, I think, was providing that. She was speaking to that part of the country. You could argue that's a waste of time, but I actually think for that 54 percent, it's very useful.

CAMEROTA: I mean, Nischelle, look, it's in the eye of the beholder.

STELTER: Yes.

CAMEROTA: You can see it as motivation -

TURNER: Right.

CAMEROTA: Or you can see it as being out of touch and that Hollywood is living in its own bubble.

TURNER: Well, I think, you know, as the political pundits always say, speaking to your base. I think that's exactly what she was doing -

STELTER: Yes.

TURNER: What exactly what she was doing and revving up her base. And also I think she was just taking this opportunity, the platform that she had, knowing that she would have several minutes of all eyes on her, being the Cecil B. DeMille Award winner, and just saying what she felt. I think she took this opportunity to really say what she felt. And, to be honest, I don't think she really cares what the backlash is because I think she's smart enough to know she was going to get some of this type of response.

STELTER: Right.

TURNER: And I have to say, you know, the president-elect, he can not like what she said one bit. And if I were him, I probably would not like what she said and what she did. But to call Meryl Streep overrated? Oh, my goodness.

STELTER: Trump is a counter puncher.

CAMEROTA: Right.

STELTER: He has to punch back. It's in his DNA.

TURNER: Yes.

STELTER: I think the fact that he fought back with saying, she's a Hillary lover. Said that to "The New York Times."

TURNER: Yes, a flunky is what he said.

STELTER: A Hillary flunky on Twitter this morning.

CAMEROTA: Right.

TURNER: Yes.

STELTER: It's that "us" verses "them" mentality that we're seeing from the president-elect. He could invite her to the White House. He could invite her there for a party.

TURNER: Right.

STELTER: A lot of different ways to play this. You know, by the way, Trump continues to deny ever making fun of Serge Kovaleski, "The New York Times" reporter who has a disability who had contradicted some of what Trump had been lying about, when Trump said thousands of Muslims were cheering in New Jersey on 9/11. That was the root of this story, actually -

TRUMP: Right.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

STELTER: Which caused Trump to respond to Serge Kovaleski.

CAMEROTA: And people can go on - STELTER: Trump could also reach out to Serge Kovaleski, and I'm not sure he's ever done that either.

CAMEROTA: People can go online and watch that for themselves.

But there were some other lighter moments at the awards show last night.

STELTER: Thank goodness.

CAMEROTA: So, Nischelle, here was one of them. Ryan Reynolds, when he did not win, decided to, I guess, well, embrace the man sitting next to him, Andrew Garfield.

[08:55:09] TURNER: Why not?

CAMEROTA: Yes. So this got a lot of - this got a lot of attention, including from Ryan Reynolds' wife there, who seems to be enjoying that. What was going on here, Nischelle?

TURNER: Good question. Bromance? I don't know, you know. You know what, the Golden Globes is the show where Hollywood kind of really lets loose because there's an open bar, the drinks are flowing all night and by that point in the night, I'm sure there had been several of them. But, yes, you know what, there were a couple of those light moments and people just like to have a little fun. Ryan Reynolds said, hey, I lost, I might as well, you know, get a smooch on the side if I'm going to be a loser tonight. But - and then subsequently Ryan Gosling gave one of the most beautiful speeches of the night. So it was a fun moment.

CAMEROTA: You've got 15 seconds, Brian. What was your highlight?

STELTER: Well, seeing "La La Land" rack up those awards, it - you know, it actually beat the record, the historic record of five. It had seven awards for the night. If you haven't seen "La La Land," now's the time to go see it.

CAMEROTA: I'm going to do that. I'm going to take your advice, particularly after last night.

STELTER: There we go.

CAMEROTA: Nischelle and Brian, thank you both very much.

TURNER: Absolutely.

CAMEROTA: "NEWSROOM" with Carol Costello is going to pick up after this very quick break. I'll see you tomorrow.